DMN BLOG...roy williams S telling it like it is

[Bleu Star]

You can spin spin spin all you want.

It's all there in print.

He 'KNOWS' #81 is going to be here.

He's positive.

Are you positive as well?

Maybe we can get rid of two knucklheads for the price of one.

You don't backtrack as well as the other members of the team. Practice up Betty.

 

[Bleu Star]

A bet is usually between two men. Guess there's a chance one will come along.

In this case it's 1.5 men. Who suggests a bet & then doesn't offer a counter to it?

 

[5Countem5]

You can spin spin spin all you want.

It's all there in print.

He 'KNOWS' #81 is going to be here.

He's positive.

Are you positive as well?

Maybe we can get rid of two knucklheads for the price of one.

Don't get testy in being shown that you are just ALL talk. The world needs talkers in order to appreciate the doers.

 

[dcfanatic]

LOL

You are truly the "man" I thought you were.


Sure thing- I'll take the bat. I've never been accused of not manning up - but sure you are used to be punked so I'll quit trying to goad you into having some cajones....

Excellent.

Going to dinner with my GF now.

And I will begin praying that Jerry does the right thing. And so will about 99.8% of the rest of the posters around here, lol.

And just for clarification.

I put up nothing, lol.

While you put up your acct on here that Terrell Owens will be a Dallas Cowboy in 2009.

 

[tyke1doe]

Dude shut up i placed in the quarterfinals on the TFA debate tournament. I would have gone into law if not for the fact that i love math and subsequently engineering.

Not caring does not imply not knowing. think about that for a bit and get back to me.

Oh, goodie. Someone told me to shut up over the Internet.

First, poster proclaims himself winner of Internet debate. Now one tells me to shut up, though don't you have to be talking for one to demand you shut up?

(Watch out, this is one of those rhetorical questions that may or may not want to answer?"

 

[WoodysGirl]

First time I've seen a Roy W thread go this long and it's not about him.

 

[tyke1doe]

Very good you can read a definition. Now explain how substituting your for youre implies that he cannot read or write. The whole assertion should be stupid prima facia but you two insist on trying to justify it.

First, illiteracy is measure in degrees, just like intelligence. People considered "illiterate" may be able to read. They just don't read proficiently or at a level that allows them to function in society.

Second, the difference between it's and its, you're and your is a grammatical lesson one should have learned in elementary school, and a knowledge one should have retained if one writes frequently. And to not use those words appropriately and to REPEATEDLY use them incorrectly suggests a certain degree of illiteracy.

Third, illiteracy, like intelligence, can be improved upon. If someone has brought information to your attention, and you receive it, you improve your literacy. If you don't, you're either stubborn, or you have a basic problem understanding language and how it's used. That is a degree and level of illiteracy, unless you have a learning disability that prevents you from grasping concepts of language.

Fourth, we're somewhat having fun with people. You guys take this too seriously. We're discussing issues and then all of a sudden this becomes a "I bested you. Just admit it and take your whipping like a man."

So? I come on here to discuss and to enjoy. I don't take any of this seriously, namecalling or otherwise. And I hope you don't either. We can go at it, and I won't have any negative feelings towards you. That's me. I can't speak for others. But that's the way I operate.

Thats an ad hominem. its obvious that you guys want to focus on red herrings whatever this whole discourse is really boring me.

We didn't call people "foolish" or "idiots" first. Please go back and read the flow of conversation. If you're going to call someone foolish, dumb, stupid or idiot, you should, at the very least, master the basic elementary points of grammar. That would include knowing the difference between it's and its, your and you're, we're and were, etc.

I only call people out when they call me out. If you're going to say I'm foolish, then at least - at the very least - write above a third grade level or have an understanding of simple rules of grammar that elementary school children would know. My third grade son knows the difference between its and it's and you're and your.

Now, is that enough of an answer for you?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh, goodie. Someone told me to shut up over the Internet.

First, poster proclaims himself winner of Internet debate. Now one tells me to shut up, though don't you have to be talking for one to demand you shut up?

(Watch out, this is one of those rhetorical questions that may or may not want to answer?"

You made the strawman of me getting those terms off of the internet. Thus me telling you to shut up because you are in no position to make claims on something you know nothing about. That being me. This is a red herring, btw.

How about you actually try and apply the definition. Thats actually one of the first things you learn in debate: it is not enough to simply read a definition.

 

[5Countem5]

And just for clarification.

I put up nothing, lol.

While you put up your acct on here that Terrell Owens will be a Dallas Cowboy in 2009.

No need for clarification, no one here expected you to step up.

 

[Bleu Star]

No need for clarification, no one here expected you to step up.

Funny how he added that little caveat eh? As if we didn't already know he was light in the fortitude department...

 

[tyke1doe]

You made the strawman of me getting those terms off of the internet. Thus me telling you to shut up because you are in no position to make claims on something you know nothing about. That being me. This is a red herring, btw.

Wow. That's not a straw man. I'm exaggerating. You know, "You got your engineering degree from a Cracker Jack box." That's not a straw man. I don't know where you got those terms. But that's definitely not a straw man. Hence, my questioning whether you really know what a straw man is.

Second, our banter here isn't a part of the overall discussion. It's a tangent. Notice, you never answered my question. You, instead, decided to make an issue of the side chatter. It is YOU who created the red herring, not I.

How about you actually try and apply the definition. Thats actually one of the first things you learn in debate: it is not enough to simply read a definition.

The definition was offered because it was from a source of authority - the dictionary.

Our interpretations of the definition involves intellect. I read a definition, and I interpret it. A dictionary can't possibly contain all the nuances of words and their meanings and their applications.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

First, illiteracy is measure in degrees, just like intelligence. People considered "illiterate" may be able to read. They just don't read proficiently or at a level that allows them to function in society.

Second, the difference between it's and its, you're and your is a grammatical lesson one should have learned in elementary school, and a knowledge one should have retained if one writes frequently. And to not use those words appropriately and to REPEATEDLY use them incorrectly suggests a certain degree of illiteracy.

Third, illiteracy, like intelligence, can be improved upon. If someone has brought information to your attention, and you receive it, you improve your literacy. If you don't, you're either stubborn, or you have a basic problem understanding language and how it's used. That is a degree and level of illiteracy, unless you have a learning disability that prevents you from grasping concepts of language.

Fourth, we're somewhat having fun with people. You guys take this too seriously. We're discussing issues and then all of a sudden this becomes a "I bested you. Just admit it and take your whipping like a man."

So? I come on here to discuss and to enjoy. I don't take any of this seriously, namecalling or otherwise. And I hope you don't either. We can go at it, and I won't have any negative feelings towards you. That's me. I can't speak for others. But that's the way I operate.



We didn't call people "foolish" or "idiots" first. Please go back and read the flow of conversation. If you're going to call someone foolish, dumb, stupid or idiot, you should, at the very least, master the basic elementary points of grammar. That would include knowing the difference between it's and its, your and you're, we're and were, etc.

I only call people out when they call me out. If you're going to say I'm foolish, then at least - at the very least - write above a third grade level or have an understanding of simple rules of grammar that elementary school children would know. My third grade son knows the difference between its and it's and you're and your.

Now, is that enough of an answer for you?

Matter of degree? Lets go back to the definition and then will look at the syntax of the word itself.

The condition of being unable to read and write.

Hmm there is no wiggle room there. Now lets look at the syntax.

It is essentially the word literate with the prefix il. What does the prefix mean?

Another prefix meaning "not" or "the opposite of" is in-.
However the spelling of this prefix often changes to
match the first letter of the base word. This sometimes
results in a double letter.
So, if we want to say the opposite of legal we say
"illegal" instead of "inlegal" (which would be awkward
to get your tongue around!).

not implies a binary nature as does the term opposite. it again leaves no room for wiggle.

Also another big no-no is to give a definition and then ignore it when trying to make another point as to the meaning of a word. It shows that youre trying to throw the proverbial crap against the wall.

also point to where i specifically called someone an idiot. i generalize idiots and if you choose to fit yourself into that categorization then so be it and i also call certain ideas dumb because i feel that they are. i dont insult people. bbgun otoh.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

and no i dont take this seriously. i act the pompous *** you dont think i dont know that?

 

[tyke1doe]

Matter of degree? Lets go back to the definition and then will look at the syntax of the word itself.

The condition of being unable to read and write.

Hmm there is no wiggle room there. Now lets look at the syntax.

It is essentially the word literate with the prefix il. What does the prefix mean?

Another prefix meaning "not" or "the opposite of" is in-.
However the spelling of this prefix often changes to
match the first letter of the base word. This sometimes
results in a double letter.
So, if we want to say the opposite of legal we say
"illegal" instead of "inlegal" (which would be awkward
to get your tongue around!).

not implies a binary nature as does the term opposite. it again leaves no room for wiggle.

Also another big no-no is to give a definition and then ignore it when trying to make another point as to the meaning of a word. It shows that youre trying to throw the proverbial crap against the wall.

also point to where i specifically called someone an idiot. i generalize idiots and if you choose to fit yourself into that categorization then so be it and i also call certain ideas dumb because i feel that they are. i dont insult people. bbgun otoh.

Sorry, but you're not applying common sense to a definition.

I've worked with illiterate people. Some of them can read. They can stumble over very basic words. And they can write very basic sentences.

By the dictionary's term, these people would not be illiterate.

If a person could just write his name, and nothing else, then by the dictionary that person couldn't be called illiterate because the dictionary says ... "The condition of being unable to read and write."

But any person who works with illiterate people will tell you that's not the case.

With all due respect, it's very hard to discuss these issues with people who don't have real life experiences. Now maybe this isn't you, and I don't want to demean your experiences. But have you ever worked with illiterate people before?

It's just like people talking about the media fabricating stories, and from where I sit as a reporter, these people don't know what they're talking about. Their experiences are born from television or movies or I don't know what else. But many of them obviously haven't worked at a newsroom or television station or understand how journalists use anonymous sources. It shows a detachment from reality and how things work in the real world.

At any rate, if you are building your argument about literacy and illiteracy on the dictionary's definition and believe there's no wiggle room, I suggest you go find some folks who are considered illiterate and see if they can't read or write AT ALL. And if they are 38 years old, but can only read "See Jane run," and nothing else, by your interpretation of the dictionary's definition, they're not illiterate. Remember, you said, "No wiggle room."

As for the rest of your post, I'm tired of this discourse. If you want to declare Internet victory, have at it.

I'm down by two defeats. How shall I ever bring myself to return to this forum.

Oh, the shame. ...................................

 

[superpunk]

First time I've seen a Roy W thread go this long and it's not about him.

What is it about?

tl;dr

 

[theebs]

First time I've seen a Roy W thread go this long and it's not about him.

I told you it would be fun.

when the most scrutinized player of the last 5 years not named owens calls out ..well..owens....the responses should be vast and all over the place.

 

[WoodysGirl]

What is it about?

tl;dr

Me neither. Based on the last couple pages: T.O.

I told you it would be fun.

when the most scrutinized player of the last 5 years not named owens calls out ..well..owens....the responses should be vast and all over the place.

I saw it when you first posted and there were four posts. Four hour laters and it exploded.

 

[5Countem5]

It's just like people talking about the media fabricating stories, and from where I sit as a reporter, these people don't know what they're talking about. Their experiences are born from television or movies or I don't know what else. But many of them obviously haven't worked at a newsroom or television station or understand how journalists use anonymous sources. It shows a detachment from reality and how things work in the real world.

I would expect a reporter to deny, deny and deny that stories are fabricated all the time. It's in your self-interest to fight what everyone knows and maintain some semblance of credibility in your industry.

Not saying you make up stories either, but even being a reporter -you have no more insight into these "stories" than any of us.

Do you?

 

[Audiman]

DeMarcus Ware says he isn't.

But as we all know, anything positive someone says about him is a lie and they're just being a good little soldier and class act. Anything negative said about him is the truth.

Nothing like having an agenda.

that, and DeMarcus Ware is actually good at his job...

 

[RoadRunner]

BTW, this thread has it all.